Neal Ascherson is correct in assuming that there is a case for giving Scotland greater control over its affairs, but wrong in suggesting that this should form part of a referendum on independence – yes or no. ("If Scotland becomes a sovereign, mature nation, England gains too", Comment). Adding a third question on "devolution plus" or "devo max" would likely result in a large majority for such a move, irrespective of its merits, simply because a large proportion (perhaps all) of the "yes" camp for independence would be tempted to vote also for devo max (or "plus"), but only as a fall-back position, and to this would be added the votes of those who might genuinely favour greater devolved powers rather than independence.

And what about those who want neither devo max nor independence? Only if it were made compulsory to vote for just one of the three options could potential bias be averted – but no one has suggested that as yet.

The extent and implications of the additional devolved powers that may be desirable from both Scottish and UK perspectives are totally unclear and only when clarified could, if necessary, form part of a later referendum. Mr Ascherson is also right in assuming that, given Mr Salmond's skill at picking quarrels with Westminster and his skill at the blame game and at whipping up nationalistic fervour, he would regard devo max as the next stepping stone to full independence.

In an interview in the same issue of the Observer, Alistair Darling points out the limitations on fiscal autonomy in Scotland imposed by those controlling the currency – whether the Bank of England for sterling or Brussels and Frankfurt for the euro. This applies as much to devo max as to independence.

Dr Gerald Wiener

Inverness

Neil Ascherson's article is remarkably one-sided. Most would agree that if the Scots want independence then they themselves should decide it (though if parts of Scotland such as the Shetlands decide to go it alone or wish to keep the oil revenues to themselves would Alex Salmond agree? And if not, why not?). However, if the Scots want devo max, then the rest of the UK should have a say in whether they agree or not, since it is keeping costly liabilities and giving succour to a people who seemingly "want their cake and eat it". In such a case, then the other parts of the UK have a right to say yea or nay.

JKM (George) Krawiec

North Thoresby

Lincs

You and Neal Ascherson plump squarely for devo max. Its necessary implication, and presumably for Wales also, is "United Kingdom lite". Constitutionally, this entails turning the UK into a federation, with a new parliament for England and federal institutions to manage things of common concern, essentially foreign policy and defence and probably a new constitutional court as well as the supreme court.

Like you, I would welcome this as the harbinger of a "modern confident state".

Benedict Birnberg

London SE3

The SNP wishes to hold its referendum on independence in 2014 to follow the anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn, which it will no doubt use as a nationalist flag-waving extravaganza.

September 2013 is the 500th anniversary of the battle of Flodden, a devastating defeat for Scotland in which its king and many of its nobility were killed. Should we English flag-wave? I suggest that instead we commemorate that battle by holding a dignified but very visible ceremony (Flodden is conveniently close to the border) to remember the dead on both sides and the politics of divisiveness that led to their slaughter.

We should then challenge the SNP to commemorate Bannockburn in the same spirit.